G. SARASWATHI & ANR. versus RATHINAMMAL & ORS. on 15 February 2018

548

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 2 S.C.R.

A

G. SARASWATHI & ANR.

v.

RATHINAMMAL & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2112 of 2018)

B

FEBRUARY 15, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.31 – Appellantsfiled a suit against the respondents for specific performance ofagreement – Trial Court decreed the suit – Single Judge, High CourtCset aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court – Aggrieved,appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench,which dismissed the appeal – Propriety of – Held: Not proper –Case remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for decidingthe LPA afresh on merits in accordance with law – The reason isDthat the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by theappellants(plaintiffs) cursorily without dealing with any of the issuesarising in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties insupport of their case – In the absence of any application of judicialmind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appealand further without even mentioning the factual narration of theEcase set up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to howthey dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respectivejurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation,reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why thefindings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed,Fwhile dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legalprinciples applicable to the case, it is difficult to sustain such orderof the Division Bench – Disposal of LPA by the Division Bench ofthe High Court not in conformity with the requirements of Or. XLI,r.31 CPC.

GJudgments/Orders – Reasoned order – Emphasis on Courtsto pass reasoned order in every case.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The need to remand the case to the High Courthas occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench dismissedH

the appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) cursorily withoutdealing with any of the issues arising in the case as also thearguments urged by the parties in support of their case. [Para12] [551-F]

2. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mindto the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal andfurther without even mentioning the factual narration of the caseset up by the parties, the findings of the two Courts as to howthey dealt with the issues arising in the case in their respectivejurisdiction and without there being any discussion, appreciation,reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why thefindings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld or reversed,while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light oflegal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Courtto sustain such order of the Division Bench. The disposal of theLPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said tobe in conformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 13] [551-G-H; 552-A]

3. Time and again, Supreme Court has emphasized on theCourts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which mustcontain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties tothe lis, the issues arising the case, the submissions urged by theparties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved andthe reasons in support of the findings on all the issues in supportof its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Benchfailed to keep in mind this principle while disposing of the appealand passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such orderundoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprivedthem to know the reasons as to why one party has won and otherhas lost. [Para 14] [552-B-D]

4. The case remanded to the Division Bench of the HighCourt for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance withlaw. [Para 15] [552-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2112of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2004 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in L. P. A. No. 32 of 2000.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

AP. V. Yogeswaran, Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Bhuvan Jayant, Advs.for the Appellants.

Ms. Jyoti Parasher, N. J. Ramchander, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated21.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in L.P.A.No.32 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissedCthe appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1998 passedby the Single Judge of the High Court in A.S. No.630 of 1984.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would beclear from the facts stated hereinbelow.

4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents areDthe defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

5. The appellants filed a civil suit against the respondents forspecific performance of the agreement. The respondents filed their writtenstatement and denied the material averments of the appellants’ claim setup in the plaint. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed theEissues. Parties adduced their evidence. By Judgment/decree dated03.07.1984, the Trial Court decreed the appellants’ suit.

6. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed appeal before theSingle Bench of the High Court. By judgment/decree dated 30.10.1998,the Single Judge allowed the respondents’ appeal and while setting asideFof the judgment/decree of the Trial Court dismissed the appellants’ suit.

7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appealbefore the Division Bench. By impugned order, the Division Benchdismissed the appeal giving rise to filing of this appeal before this Courtby way of special leave.

G

8. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissingthe appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal.

9. Heard Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, learned counsel for the appellantsand Ms. Jyoti Parasher, learned counsel for the respondents.

H

G. SARASWATHI & ANR. v. RATHINAMMAL & ORS.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench ofthe High Court for deciding the LPA afresh on merits in accordancewith law.

11. The impugned order reads as under:

“This L.P.A. coming on for hearing on Thursday the fifteenday April, 2004 upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, theorder of the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Thangavel dated30.10.98 and made in the exercise of the Special AppellateJurisdiction of the High Court in A.S. No. 630 of 1984 andall other papers material to this case, and upon hearingthe arguments of Mr. T.M. Hariharan, Advocate for theAppellants and Mr. K. Rakhunathan, Advocate for Istrespondent and steps not having been taken up to servethe notice to the Respondents 3 to 5 and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Court doth orderand decree as follows:

(i) That the judgment and Decree dated 30.10.98 and madein the exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Hon’bleHigh Court in A.S. No.630/1984 be and hereby areconfirmed; and the letters patent appeal is dismissed; and

(ii) That there be no costs in this L.P.A.”

12. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasionedfor the reason that the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by theappellants (plaintiffs) cursorily without dealing with any of the issuesarising in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in supportof their case.

13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind tothe factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and further withouteven mentioning the factual narration of the case set up by the parties,the findings of the two Courts as to how they dealt with the issues arisingin the case in their respective jurisdiction and without there being anydiscussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issuesand why the findings of two Courts below deserve to be upheld orreversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light oflegal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Asuch order of the Division Bench. In our opinion, the disposal of theLPA by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be inconformity with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

14. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts theBneed to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain thenarration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issuesarising the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principlesapplicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findingson all the issues in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate thatthe Division Bench failed to keep in mind this principle while disposingCof the appeal and passed a cryptic and unreasoned order. Such orderundoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them toknow the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. Wecan never countenance the manner in which such order was passed bythe High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to theDHigh Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal,set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Benchof the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordancewith law keeping in view our observations made supra.

E

16. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from makingany observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinionto remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above.The High Court would, therefore, decide the appeal, uninfluenced byany of our observations, strictly in accordance with law. Since the appealFis quite old, we request the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal ofthe appeal.

17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set asidewith the aforesaid directions.

G

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.

H